European Patent Office

T 0930/92 (Ion beam processing) du 29.05.1995

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:1995:T093092.19950529
Date de la décision
29 mai 1995
Numéro de l'affaire
T 0930/92
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
82109014.9
Classe de la CIB
H01J 37/30
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
-
Titre de la demande
Ion beam processing apparatus and method of correcting mask defects
Nom du demandeur
Hitachi
Nom de l'opposant
ICT
Chambre
3.4.01
Sommaire

I. There is an equitable obligation upon every party who is summoned to oral proceedings to inform the EPO as soon as it knows that it will not attend as summoned. This is the case whether or not that party has itself requested oral proceedings, and whether or not a communication has accompanied the summons to oral proceedings.

II. If a party who has been summoned to oral proceedings fails to attend as summoned without notifying the EPO in advance that it will not attend, an apportionment of costs in favour of another party who has attended as summoned may be justified for reasons of equity in accordance with Article 104(1) EPC.

III. When fixing the amount of costs to be paid to a party, in addition to the remuneration of the professional representative of that party, the expenses incurred by an employee of that party in order to instruct the professional representative before and during oral proceedings may be taken into consideration under Rule 63(1) EPC, if such instruction was "necessary to assure proper protection of the rights involved."

Mots-clés
Inventive step (yes)
Oral proceedings appointed following auxiliary requests by both parties
No communication under Article 11(2) RPBA
Appellant failed to appear at oral proceedings as summoned
Apportionment of costs in favour of Respondent
Fixed amount ordered
Reasonable level of costs
Exergue
-
Affaires citées
T 0003/90

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Appellant shall pay the Respondent the sum of DM 20 750, by way of apportionment of costs.